Sison v. Tablang
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) and Technical Working Group (TWG) of the National Housing Authority (NHA), received honoraria totaling ₱364,299.31. Audit Observation Memoranda were issued, leading to three Notices of Disallowance (NDs) by the Legal and Adjudication Office-Corporate (LAO-C) for want of legal basis and for payment in excess of allowed rates, contrary to DBM Budget Circular No. 2004-5. Procedural History: Petitioners sought reconsideration of the NDs, arguing that payment was based on the number of projects completed and the rate provided under the IRR of R.A. 9184, and that in the absence of DBM IRR, they were given 25% of their basic monthly salary. They also requested that any refund be deducted from future honoraria or COLA. The LAO-C denied their motions. Petitioners then filed a petition for review with the Adjudication and Settlement Board (ASB) of the Commission on Audit (COA), which affirmed the LAO-C decision. Petitioners then filed the instant petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners maintained that the grant of honoraria, not exceeding 25% of their basic monthly salaries, was justified under R.A. No. 9184 and that they did not exceed the 25% limit.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Whether the payment of honoraria to BAC and TWG members was justified under R.A. No. 9184 and its implementing rules and guidelines.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The disallowances are upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the failure to exhaust administrative remedies: The Court held that petitioners failed to appeal the decision of the ASB to the Commission on Audit Proper before filing the instant petition. This contravenes the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies, which requires parties to avail themselves of all available administrative processes before seeking judicial intervention. The COA's rules clearly provide for an appeal to the Commission Proper from the ASB's decision. Since this procedural step was not taken, the petition suffers from a fatal procedural infirmity, rendering the disallowance final and executory. On the justification for the payment of honoraria: Even disregarding the procedural defect, the Court found sufficient bases to uphold the Notices of Disallowance. Section 15 of R.A. No. 9184 states that honoraria may be granted to BAC members not exceeding 25% of their basic monthly salary, subject to availability of funds, and that the DBM shall promulgate the necessary guidelines. The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9184 reiterated this, also allowing honoraria for TWG members subject to DBM rules. Crucially, DBM Budget Circular No. 2004-5, issued on March 23, 2004, prescribed that honoraria could only be paid for successfully completed procurement projects and set specific rates per project, with the monthly total not exceeding 25% of the basic salary. The Court emphasized that the provision of Section 15 of R.A. No. 9184 is not self-executing and requires DBM guidelines for implementation. Petitioners erred in granting themselves 25% of their basic monthly salaries as honoraria even before the DBM guidelines were promulgated. The word 'may' in Section 15 signifies that honoraria cannot be demanded as a right. The DBM circular clarified that a procurement project is successfully completed only upon award of the contract. Since the payments did not comply with the law and the applicable DBM rules and guidelines, the disallowances were proper.
Main Doctrine
The grant of honoraria to members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) and Technical Working Group (TWG) is subject to the availability of funds and must comply with the guidelines and rules promulgated by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) as mandated by Republic Act No. 9184. Payments made without such compliance are subject to disallowance.